What determines desktop graphics rating in the windows 8 experience index?

[yoda313]

Why is my 3d gaming rating higher than my desktop graphics performance in windows 8?

experience.jpg

I have a 2gb nvidia geforce GT 610. I know its not the most powerful card but it should be pretty powerful. It gives me a 6.9 (edit - sorry thats a 6.1 not a 6.9, I was combing the 6.1 and 5.9 that were the two lowest numbers on the chart) 3d gaming performance rating but only a 4 for desktop graphics performance.

If it wasn't for that my rating would be 5.9 which is the next lowest for data transfer.

Is this a factor for having an older processor and motherboard? Are those the bottleneck for that rating? Its a dell optiplex 755 running a intel quad core q6600.

I'm not about to buy a new motherboard and processor just to change one rating. I probably will eventually but this is a great stop gap pc for me right now.

So why is the 3d gaming performance higher than the desktop graphics perfomance? As some would say that seems ass-backwards to me. I would figure if anything even though its a dedicated graphics card it would be the desktop performance that would be rated higher and the 3d gaming performance that would need the latest and greatest card and motherboard/cpu.

Again I won't be doing anymore upgrades for awhile but I was curious about this oddity in my windows rating.

By the way how does that look to you? I think the computer is performing very well and is dramatically faster than my old dual core. Thanks to the quad core processor and the 6.5gbs of ram

[fritzi93]

Doesn't look out of the ordinary to me. Mine looks similar, and I have a not so very powerful Radeon 5450. You're disappointed your card didn't rate higher? So long as it's sufficient for what you do, don't be.



[EDIT] Oh, and congratulations. (Ain't it great?) I jumped from a dual core to this setup and I recall just how pleased I was with the dramatic performance increase. I don't foresee having to upgrade for a good while yet and really, you probably don't need to either. That should perform quite respectably.

Hint: You might consider sticking an SSD in there though.

[jagabo]

I forget exactly what it is but there are some 2d features that some graphics cards no longer implement in hardware. Circle fills or something like that. I think part of it is bus bandwidth too. A card with 32 bit memory will score much lower than a cards with 64 bit memory.

[fritzi93]

I forget exactly what it is but there are some 2d features that some graphics cards no longer implement in hardware. Circle fills or something like that. I think part of it is bus bandwidth too. A card with 32 bit memory will score much lower than a cards with 64 bit memory.

Now that's really interesting.

At any rate I don't know all the criteria by which the WEI graphics scores are calculated, nor how much weight is given to each. (All the other ratings seem to be pretty straightforward.) Without looking it up, I'm fairly sure Yoda's graphics card is more powerful than mine.

[Kerry56]

My old Radeon 4850 card scores 7.2 in both of those measurements. ??? And its now in legacy support status.

[yoda313]

You're disappointed your card didn't rate higher? So long as it's sufficient for what you do, don't be.

Confused is more like it. I would have expected the gaming performance to be lower and have the two figures flip-flopped.

As for performance it does do what I need it to do so I'm happy there. The hdmi out was the main need and h264 support.

[EDIT] Oh, and congratulations. (Ain't it great?) I jumped from a dual core to this setup and I recall just how pleased I was with the dramatic performance increase. I don't foresee having to upgrade for a good while yet and really, you probably don't need to either. That should perform quite respectably.

Yes it is and I'm glad I finally did it. So far I'm liking the perfomance. I just got near 30fps encoding on the veryfast and faster presets in ripbot for a bluray anime encode (the individual episodes and going to 720p cq22). I'm very happy with that. I have yet to check out the quality on the two versions. But since the faster preset seemed to be close to the speed of the veryfast if the veryfast isn't redhot I would not be at all disappointed with the encoding speed for the faster preset.

Hint: You might consider sticking an SSD in there though.

Actually I'm very pleased with the boot time I get with the dual core and windows 8. Its lightyears ahead of my vista dual core. Now granted that is essentially an original install on there. I don't remember the last time I reinstalled the os (oem hp). So a reinstall might actually help if I have too much junk floating around in the registry and whatnot.

But I've got a new seagate internal 1tb sata that is more than sufficient. I partitioned it to 80gbs and left the rest for work space. I also have a separate 500gb harddrive that I transplanted from my vista (the vista still has the boot drive, this was my expansion drive for that pc).

I forget exactly what it is but there are some 2d features that some graphics cards no longer implement in hardware. Circle fills or something like that. I think part of it is bus bandwidth too. A card with 32 bit memory will score much lower than a cards with 64 bit memory.

I'm not too surprised it could be a bandwidth issue. Seeing as this pc was before win7 and 8. It was designed for vista.

My old Radeon 4850 card scores 7.2 in both of those measurements. ??? And its now in legacy support status.

That must support what jagabo was saying about certain 2d features not being implemented anymore.

Thanks everybody. I feel better about my score. And its good to know I should have a decent setup for what I was shooting for.

Obviously its not a cutting edge i7 or whatever the latest intel is. But as far as an incremental and on the cheap approach this is doing wonders for my future encoding projects.

Now I can set my sights on more bluray movie encodes and not just episode encoding. And I can budget hours instead of half days or more for extensive projects.

All I have to do now is change ripbots ini file so it will use my large partition for the temp files instead of my smaller boot partition. I dug up a thread earlier on that and I should be able to get that going.

[jagabo]

I forget exactly what it is but there are some 2d features that some graphics cards no longer implement in hardware. Circle fills or something like that. I think part of it is bus bandwidth too. A card with 32 bit memory will score much lower than a cards with 64 bit memory.

Now that's really interesting.

This is what I remember reading a few years ago:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d-windows-gdi,2539.html

[yoda313]

I forget exactly what it is but there are some 2d features that some graphics cards no longer implement in hardware. Circle fills or something like that. I think part of it is bus bandwidth too. A card with 32 bit memory will score much lower than a cards with 64 bit memory.

Now that's really interesting.

This is what I remember reading a few years ago:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d-windows-gdi,2539.html

;

Thanks. I got through about the 8th page before I lost interest (once it starting going into graphics card comparisons). But the history was worth the read.

Now I have a better understanding of some of the hatred towards vista. I do remember the driver issue problem a little. I never had real problems with my vista hp pc. Aside from the normal occasional hiccups you get in windows in general that is.

[fritzi93]

So far I'm liking the perfomance. I just got near 30fps encoding on the veryfast and faster presets in ripbot for a bluray anime encode (the individual episodes and going to 720p cq22). I'm very happy with that. I have yet to check out the quality on the two versions. But since the faster preset seemed to be close to the speed of the veryfast if the veryfast isn't redhot I would not be at all disappointed with the encoding speed for the faster preset.

I use BDRB at slowest settings for Blu-Ray backups and Ripbot for MKVs.

I've tried all the Ripbot presets and have settled on the default "Slow" speed, with "Film" tune. That yields a little over 20 fps on my machine. Output file size is smaller (than faster presets) and quality seems to be a little better, if I'm not deceiving myself. What the hell, that's fast enough.

If anyone wants fast, BDRB is the way to go for MKVs. Often it'll give over 70 fps, but the quality is not as good for the same crf setting as Ripbot. File size is almost always significantly bigger too, but not always, which is a puzzler.

Jagabo and others have commented in previous threads about quality differences between the various preset speeds. Perhaps they wouldn't mind speaking to that again?

[yoda313]

Jagabo and others have commented in previous threads about quality differences between the various preset speeds. Perhaps they wouldn't mind speaking to that again?

Actually I've got another thread on cuda that I'll leave for this discussion.

I haven't tested my files yet - but I did do a test with the animation preset on faster mode in ripbot (for the anime disc). SO i have three different formats to test - veryfast, faster, and faster with the animation mode enabled.

So if I have other needs I'll either stick with the cuda thread or do a specific thread on speed vs quality which has been discussed multiple times here. I could also hijack a similar thread should I have questions on various x264 preset issues.

This particular thread was mainly about the graphics performance issue on the index rating.

Thanks everybody

[TBoneit]

Strange. This message made me decide to look at This little AIO with these results. Intel Built in Video.